Friday, July 29, 2016

The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and the results are in for this week's Watcher's Council match up.

"“The way that I look at it, you take the two officers in New York. I was heart-broken because I knew for sure that these officers had nothing to do with the killing of Eric Garner. You can’t generally be anti-police, because if you become completely anti-police, then criminals are going to take over. When we see these killings, the general thought here is that two wrongs don’t make a right." - Former gang leader Arthur Reed, AKA 'Silky Slim'

"... Black Lives Matter never protests when every 14 hours somebody is killed in Chicago, probably 70-80% of the time (by) a black person. Where are they then? Where are they when a young black child is killed?" - Rudy Giuliani

This weeks' winning essay is Stately McDanial Manor'sDallas: An Explosive Use Of Police Force. In it, he examines the legal and practical issues that come to bear when deadly force is used by police with a professional's eye as a former policemen, what determinations a policeman has to make in seconds in order todo his or her job and how these standaqrds apply when it comes to personal self defense. Here's a slice of this well written, informative post:

Police use of force is very much in the news these days. On one hand, Social Justice warriors and Democrat politicians (yes; I know I repeat myself) argue that virtually any use of force against favored victim groups–these days, primarily young black males–is not only illegitimate, but inherently racist and criminal. On the other, most people haven’t a clue about the legal issues revolving around the use of deadly force.

The social justice cry is particularly loud when the criminal was not carrying a gun. In such cases, the Michael Brown case being an obvious contemporary example, the cry “unarmed black man” reverberates throughout the media and blogosphere as though those three words say all that need be said, and unquestionably prove any and everything Black Lives Matter cracktivists assert.
In reality, a criminal relying only on his hands and feet can present a deadly threat, a threat justifying an entirely lawful lethal response, whether done by any member of the public or a police officer. This was exactly the case with Michael Brown. It was also the case with Trayvon Martin. Both are continually cited as unarmed, black, holy social justice martyrs, despite the fact that both criminals died while under the influence of drugs, in the act of trying to kill others–classic cases of self-defense–and no police officers were involved in Martin’s death.

One contemporary case of great significance is the ambush murders of Dallas police officers. Everything about that case effectively refutes the arguments of the social justice crowd. The black killer was very well armed and trained, and was absolutely a racist. We know because during brief negotiations, he expressly said he wanted to kill white police officers, and intended to kill as many as he could.

Even so, some are crying excessive use of police force because the Dallas Police used explosives–reportedly C4, a military grade plastic explosive–delivered by a remote-controlled robot, to actually blow the shooter to bits. And after all, he was black, so the police must be racist somehow. Paul Mirengoff at Powerline reports:

Some apparently believed that the officers engaged in the standoff with Johnson, and who had tried unsuccessfully to persuade him to surrender, needed to come close enough to Johnson (who had already killed multiple officers) to be shot at before they would be justified in killing him. As it was, said one law professor, only the robot was in danger.

This kind of commentary proves primarily one thing: even the overwhelming majority of lawyers have no understanding of deadly force law.

When cop killers are willing to die in order to take out police officers in gun battles, we are in uncharted territory. Police departments need to find ways to fight back without accommodating the killers’ desire for a fire fight.

Actually, Mirengoff is partially incorrect. We are not in uncharted territory, as I’ll explain, but first, two important preliminary issues: anyone interested in this topic, or who carries a concealed weapon, must have Andrew Branca’s The Law of Self Defense, an indispensable book. Branca and I often cover national cases such as the Martin case, and currently, the prosecution of the Baltimore officers, he at Legal Insurrection. Also, we must have an understanding of the issues–triggers, if you will–relating to the use of force, and particularly deadly force.

Each state has its own very specific laws on these issues, and it’s an individual duty to be familiar with those laws. When force has been used, particularly deadly force, those laws will be applied to determine whether that defense was lawful self-defense–justifiable homicide–or some degree of murder.

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher's Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y'know?

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

This is Donald Trump's press conference in Doral, Florida today, July 27th. Note how hostile the press is towards him and how well he handles them, especially since he obviously had a cold.

Watch how he notes that it has been over 230 days since Hillary Clinton had a presser, amazing given the softballs they always throw at her anyway. And how he mentions the huge increases in ObamaCare premiums due to be announced November 1 that President Obama is trying to put off until December, after the election. And challenges the press to actually do their jobs for a change and publicize that so Obama can't get away with it.

Welcome to the Watcher's Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the 'sphere, and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council.Then we vote on the best two posts, with the results appearing on Friday morning.

Council News:

Stay tuned for an important announcement regarding big changes in the Watcher's Council!

You can, too! Want to see your work appear on the Watcher’s Council homepage in our weekly contest listing? Didn’t get nominated by a Council member? No worries.

To bring something to my attention, simply head over to Joshuapundit and post the title and a link to the piece you want considered along with an e-mail address (mandatory, but of course it won't be published) in the comments section no later than Monday 6PM PST in order to be considered for our honorable mention category. Then return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for the week when it comes out on Wednesday morning

Simple, no?

It's a great way of exposing your best work to Watcher’s Council readers and Council members while grabbing the increased traffic and notoriety. And how good is that, eh?

Monday, July 25, 2016

There's a real poetic justice in seeing the Democrats, who have so often orchestrated violent chaos as a political tool being forced to eat a huge meal of it themselves. Especially when it was the Republican convention in Cleveland that was supposed to be the scene of mass riots and protests.

Bernie Sanders tepidly endorsing Hillary Clinton was bad enough as far as his followers were concerned. Now that the Wikileaks emails have surfaced and they see how the DNC had the whole system rigged for her from the very beginning and the dirty tricks they used to keep it that way, they're outraged. Bernie supporters have hit the streets in massive numbers in protest...and one thing I saw that warmed my heart was hundreds of them chanting 'Lock her up!' about Mrs. Clinton, just like their Republican counterparts.

She may have avoided prison in one of the sleaziest, most disgraceful episodes in American political history, but in the court of public opinion, she's guilty as hell except among the True Believers and the bought and paid for.

Aside from revealing the dirty tricks used to torpedo Bernie Sanders, the e-mails revealed in full detail exactly how much cynical disdain the the movers and shakers of the Democrat party have for the people and special interest groups they pretend to care about. Jim Hofts at Gateway Pundit has a rundown of links:

One amusing sidelight is the fantasy of certain #neverTrump Ready For Hillary maniacs that Putin is behind the Wikileaks release to help Donald Trump. Such conspiracy theories are always amusing,but this one's hysterically funny. Vladimir Putin would love to see Hillary elected. She's corrupt, not too bright and if she becomes troublesome in the least, all he has to do is slide a folder towards her containing copies of some of the juicy e-mails the Russians hacked from her private unsecured server to blackmail her into subservience.

Much of this stuff likely came from her unprotected illegal server anyway along with a lot of classified and secret material Putin's still holding on to. And the e-mails were all real weren't they? Even the DNC admitted as much.

Another hilarious meme is how cluelessly the Democrats revealed how their actions belied everything they supposed stand for:

Compassion for the poor? The Republicans donated their leftover food to various food banks. The Democrats? They threw theirs out.

And of course, the Wikileaks revelations and their chosen candidate have told us a great deal of how the DNC regards 'transparency' honesty in government, respect for law and how they really feel about those special interest groups they pretend to champion. I especially liked the one where the Democrats' refer to conning Latinos as "taco bowl outreach."

Heck tomorrow night's speaker if none other than serial sex abuser Bill Clinton! And of course, Hillary's plan to continue Obama's importation of unvetted Muslim 'refugees' on steroids ought to make any LGBT person with a functioning brain vote against her, as well as young women who don't like the idea of being raped.

And in the midst of all this, we have Bernie Sanders who only know realizes how rigged the game was from the start for Hillary, and decided to swallow it and endorse her.

I almost have to feel sorry for Bernie Sanders, but not too much. There he was, speaking at the convention, begging his followers to vote for Hillary...and getting booed harshly as a sellout:

Yeah, you've been sold out big time. Your idol just told you, this is the real world and that means money talks.

The real fun, of course, will come when Mrs Clinton has to address the convention, which includes over a thousand angry Bernie Sanders delegates. The DNC might be able to drag off any protesters but delegates?

That's all Mrs. Clinton needs, especially after Donald Trump threw out a strong, direct appeal to the Bernie supporters in his speech last week. Like blacks and Latinos, a surprising number of Bernie supporters may just secretly pull the lever for Trump in the privacy of the voting booth. And a lot of others will simply stay home and nurse their hurt feelings, or vote for the Green Party.

I expect the usual suspects to manufacture a 'bounce' for Hillary in the post convention polls, but I think for once, her karma is catching up with her.

Every week on Monday, the Council, members of the Watcher's Council Community and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's question: What Was Your Reaction To Trump's Acceptance Speech?

Stately McDaniel Manor : Donald Trump’s Convention acceptance speech embodied everything I like about him, and everything I fear could easily derail his campaign and allow Hillary Clinton, the most hateful, angry and corrupt harridan imaginable, to seize the White House at a time when the Supreme Court, and the future of Western Civilization are up for grabs.

I suspect Trump’s popularity comes from his willingness to say, loudly and even a little crudely and clumsily, what so many Americans think and feel. There is no politically correct filter there. He is a self-made man, a genuine American success story, and he does get things done when others can’t. His deal-making skills may be of great value, as might his stubbornness and self-assurance.

But what scares me more than a little are the same things, and more. His speech was ridiculously long. People inexperienced in public speaking often try to throw everything into every speech as though it’s the only chance they’ll ever get. Some just love the sound of their own voice, even though they, like Trump, tend to endlessly repeat themselves, and fill their speeches with verbal fillers, particularly when they speak without notes or a teleprompter.

Trump also tends not to focus on the issues of the moment, and flies off on tangents, particularly when he thinks someone has personally slighted or attacked him just as he did today when he went after Ted Cruz. He earlier tweeted that Cruz’s failure to endorse him was no big deal. He should have left it there and looked magnanimous, but nooooo! He just has to go after people personally, and when he does, he runs his mouth and might say anything. If he can’t drop that habit, he won’t become president. And if he does it as president, that’s all he’ll be doing. George W. Bush had that part of presidential temperament right. He knew everyone and their dog would go after him, and he just let them have at it. To do otherwise, elevates ankle biters to the level of President of the United States.

Trump has to learn, and very soon, to stay on message. He can do it without becoming wooden and inflexible. Learning to prioritize, to focus on what is most important, is an essential adult skill that Trump has seemingly yet to master. Being outrageous is cute and endearing for a time, but eventually, presidents have to identify big problems, explain how they are going to solve them, and do it.

We’ve had eight years of Barack Obama’s personal references. Today after the attack in Munich, I heard him on radio saying he knew nothing about what happened, but proceeded to rattle on anyway mouthing meaningless platitudes that did nothing to suppress terrorism or further international relations. Sometimes presidents accomplish most by saying least. A trumpian version of that kind of meaningless twaddle will get old very fast. We really don’t need to hear from the president every day, about everything that happens, and when we do, we quit listening. He becomes the boy that cried wolf, and isn’t heard or believed when it really matters.

It’s time for Donald Trump and his advisors to sit down and lay out a coherent plan for the rest of the campaign. That plan has to include focus on specific issues, particularly those on which Hillary is uniquely vulnerable--there are more than enough of those--Trump’s solutions and how he’ll implement them, and little or nothing else.

One other important issue: someone needs to whack Trump upside the head and convince him the President can’t “make” anything happen alone. Donald Trump, businessman, can do that; Presidents can’t. They can set agendas, cajole, guide, maneuver, use the moral bully pulpit for good and to support the Constitution. He has to learn how to play the political game for the benefit of America.

“I’ll make America great again, “ “I’m the only one that can do it,” is meaningless without answers about how that’s going to happen, and after the conventions, people are going to demand those answers. If Trump can’t provide them, if he can’t incorporate presidential demeanor without abandoning the personal qualities that have thus far inspired so many, enough people are going to go with the devil they know to elect Hillary.

Always, it’s important to remember if it’s not close, Democrats can’t win through vote fraud. We’re going to see unprecedented vote fraud in this election. Trump and the Republican National Committee need to be very concerned, and very focused, on that issue too.

The Razor : He scares the living daylights out of the Left, quite a few centrists and even a smattering of conservatives. Given the Left’s demonization of every Republican candidate since Nixon as a demagogue along the lines of, well, Nixon – it’s refreshing to actually have a candidate that lives up to their hateful rhetoric.

One thing’s for sure: if he becomes president the next 4 years are going to be interesting. Very interesting.

Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason : Donald Trump’s acceptance speech appealed to the concerns of many if not most Americans. He promised to be the law and order president and would keep us safe, build a wall to keep out illegal immigrants, and return jobs to our country.

He recited a litany of the failures of the Obama administration and the Clinton State Department, which have made us less safe at home and is leaving us a less safe world. Under the current administration we have higher rates of unemployment in minority populations, poverty, people relying on food stamps, and crime in the inner cities.

In several attacks on his Democrat opponent, he said Hillary’s greatest accomplishment might be getting away with the many crimes she committed during her term as Secretary of State.

Trump explained that “nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it.” He promised the American people that “I am your voice.” While it would have been better to say “I hear your voices” hopefully that is merely a quibble over semantics. Time will tell.

When he becomes president Trump promised we will defeat the barbarians of ISIS and we will defeat them fast. It would have been preferable to have given some specific details of his plans to defeat this radical Islamic terrorist group whose barbarism is growing and reaching across the globe.

Trump’s speech was well delivered and well received. The main stream media outlets all focused on how dark it was but unless you have not been paying attention to national and world events we truly do find ourselves in a dark place.

I look forward in the coming months to hear more substantive comments on exactly what his plans entail and how Trump will Make America Great Again.

I reserve my concerns that Trump is just another big government politician. He appears to believe he alone can do all the things he promises. Hopefully that is just ego, for if that were the case we no longer live under the laws of our constitutional republic; a Constitution which provides a balance of powers to keep despots in check.

Crime and violence are serious concerns. Trump promised to be a "law and order" president, specifics to come. Many believe race relations have deteriorated since 44 took office. Cops are under attack. Poor kids are trapped in failing public schools and Democrats won't let them escape. Trump promises school choice.

Terrorism is on the rise at home and overseas. Instead of focusing on battle readiness, our depleted military focuses on goofy fakebelieve stuff like Climate change or worse, the inclusion of transgender and women soldiers. Veterans are not being adequately cared for.

Bad trade deals are notorious for helping certain elements at the expense of the country and Democrat policies are the reason for the sorry shape the nation is in.

JoshuaPundit : Honestly, I'd give the speech a B++ if there is such a thing. By that I mean it was a really good speech with some flaws.

I've always loved hearing Donald Trump speak. His rallies didn't involve scripted, jowl shaking oratory but a sort of down to earth conversation between him and say, 30,000 people. He was so relaxed, so comfortable in his own skin it was almost eerie. Unlike most pols, he wasn't talking at them, but with them. He'd come up to the podium, take that sheet of folded paper out of his pocket and have at it. He'd get the talking points out at each spot and say what needed saying, but he'd mix them in with anecdotes about the campaign, or whatever else was on his mind, and there were always a few jokes at his own expense. And then there was the impromptu audience responses, like singing along to your favorite singer's hit songs. Going to his rallies was fun!

Trump's acceptance speech was different. The content was just fine, and it mirrored what a lot of Americans are concerned about right now, with outreach to a lot of groups who Trump is going to get more votes from than most people think. I mean, if you were LGBT and in your right mind, would you vote for Hillary who wants to bring boatloads more unvetted Muslim 'refugees' into America and take away your guns too? Ditto if you're a young woman unless you enjoy the thought of being raped.

And his attack on Hillary Clinton was bone-crushing, which is why a lot of the Democrat media ignored it.According to pollster Frank Luntz's Democrat and Republican focus groups, that part of Trump's speech was off the charts as far as approval went.

The problem was that it was about 20-25 minutes too long, and it needed to touch the bases in a more succinct, sound bitey way. It reminded me of some rock concerts where things start out energetic, hit a lull in the middle with the drum solo and then pep up for a high energy finish.

And that relaxed, natural Trump wasn't visible enough, although it was there. One of my favorite bits was when Trump was talking about the rigged system we have and how he was going to fix it and then looked at the audience, grinned, spread his hands out and said " And who would know better than me?"

It broke the audience up, and it broke me up watching the stream.

I also was a little uneasy about his refrain that he was going to fix this and that and 'we're gonna do it fast.' Government doesn't work that way, and especially not for this outsider taking on entrenched interests in both parties. Things need to be parsed, refined and done by consensus. That, by the way is why I've never been bothered by Trump's not getting into too many details but focusing on goals. That's how business gets done. The goals come first and the mechanisms come later after the pros and cons have been weighed and agreed on.

And while Ivanka was absolutely wonderful, I couldn't help wondering if a real fire breather like the Reverend Mark Burns as an opener might not have been better. The Rev reminds me of a clerical Howlin' Wolf, and that's some heavy duty praise. It would have gotten that crowd fired up like nobody's business and perhaps then The Donald would have felt able to be a bit less strident in places.

All in all though, a really good job. And as we've seen in the past, it will likely get better because if nothing else, we've seen that Trump has an astonishing ability to recover, step back and learn from his mistakes.

Well, there you have it.

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y'know?

Friday, July 22, 2016

Islamist killers struck again today. This time, the scene was Munich,Germany.

One of the killers targeted a McDonald's restaurant near the Olympia Einkaufszentrum mall in the district of Moosach and started firing into the crowded eatery while yelling the old war cry 'Allahu Akbar!'

One woman who was actually saw the shooter just before he started his rampage told CNN, 'I come out of the toilet and I hear like an alarm, boom, boom, boom. He's killing the children. The children were sitting to eat. They can't run.'

After shooting up the McDonald's, the killer sauntered into the mall itself and continued gunning down people, all the while screaming 'Allahu Akbar!' So far, nine people are dead and many badly wounded. The death toll so far may include one of the jihadis. At least 21 wounded were taken to the hospital in today's toll. At least three are said to be in critical condition.

According to Chief of Munich Police Marcus Dagloria Martins,there are at least three jihadi killers involved. In his last statement,he said, 'We are at the moment after three attackers. We have about 100 people on site and we are trying to evacuate people from the site. Our priority is to catch the attackers at this stage and then we will inform you again.

The entire city has been shut down as the police hunt for the two - or more - still unaccounted for. The main German rail company Deutsche Bahn has stopped all train traffic to Munich’s main station.

This is the second jihad attack in Germany in less than a week. Last Monday, a 17-year-old jihadi attacked people on a train in an in an ax-and-knife attack on a train near the Bavarian city of Wuerzburg and badly wounded four people as well as another woman outside as he fled until he was shot and killed by police.

'We welcome you to our country!'

Are the German people waking up yet to the fact that these 'guests' have no intention of sharing, but are there to take over? Do they realize that they are in the process of becoming a despised minority in their own country?

Almost all of these 'refugees' are young men of military age. Did the Germans actually not notice this? Did they actually expect anything different?

How many more lives will it take? And when I ask that question, I am not just talking about Germany. They're just today's event d'jour.

UPDATE: The police an 'all clear'. The Jihadi, an 18-year-old Shi'ite Muslim killed nine people and wounded 16 others, including a number of children. People outside the mall claim to have seen at least three armed men,but the police are claiming that the killer 'apparently acted alone' which means they're either right about that or that the other two got away.

Here's the punchline - Munich police chief Hubertus Andrae told a news conference the suspect ('suspect'???) was a dual citizen from Munich and his motive was still "fully unclear".

I got off some pretty good riffs as well as some decent perspective in my piece, but I have to give pride of place to Bookworm's wickedly imaginative idea of a dialogue between Satan and one of his minions!

Here's a slice:

Gun control proponents have a problem. Irrefutable data shows that, since 1992, as American gun ownership has gone up, crime has gone down. When pressed about the dramatic decrease in crime, the best that the Left can do is to point to anything but the increase in privately held weapons:

"Possible reasons for the decline include the country’s high incarceration rate, an aging population and an increased use of security cameras and cell phone videos capturing incidents."

If gun grabbers were forced to grapple with the fact that the increase in guns tracking precisely with the decrease in crime, they’d also have to acknowledge that all the aging Americans, the imprisoned Americans, and the video cameras are irrelevant. Why? Because if more guns really meant more crime, as they insist, the 300 million guns in America today would more than offset age, imprisonment, and video.

The fact is — as even the CDC was forced to admit — that guns are used defensively as often as 1.2 million times a year. This short John Stossel piece gives a very down-and-dirty explanation for the fact that, while guns are a problem when they’re in criminal hands, they’re not a problem in the hands of law-abiding citizens (and, in America, most citizens are law-abiding or at least non-violent):

So what do you do if you desperately want gun control, but the data refuses to cooperate? Well, I can imagine Lucifer and his chief minion having a meeting that goes something like this:

The scene: A well-appointed office in Hell. Satan, in a snazzy red suit is seated behind a heavy oak desk. Standing in front of the desk, facing him, is Jezebeth, a pimply young demon, who’s one of his primary Earth operatives. The year: 2009.

LUCIFER: Jezebeth, you know and I know that too much freedom is good for human souls and therefore bad for our business. Without an all-controlling government, there’s so much less scope for the corruption that fills our Hell halls. After all, every time a petty official is given the power to control a person’s activities, we’re going to start seeing all sorts of wonderful bribery and other graft.

JEZEBETH: Oh, I agree, Satan the Supreme, I agree.

LUCIFER: Don’t interrupt again. We’ll take the groveling as given. Now where was I? Oh, yes. It’s very hard to empower a corrupt, despotic government when the people are armed. Those bureaucrats may crave power, but never enough to put themselves on the wrong side of an armed citizenry. You understand, then, what we have to do: We have to take guns away from Americans.

JEZEBETH: Your Supreme Evilness, you know that we’ve been working in America for years to get guns out of people’s hands. We’ve arranged with our earthly operatives to ensure that every single time more than two white people are shot with a gun in the same event, that our friends in the Democrat party blame guns and demand gun control. But it’s just not working. People keep getting more and more guns — and let me tell you, 9/11 didn’t help us at all. Neither did Hurricane Katrina. Those people we couldn’t sway directly or through our media imps actually realized that, when there’s a crisis, that non-damned NRA was right all along — when seconds count, the police are minutes away.

LUCIFER: Stop babbling, Jezebeth, and focus here. I know that your team has been pushing gun control for years, but you’re failing. We need to brainstorm here. The problem, as I see it, is that the more that ordinary Americans get guns, the fewer guns crimes there are. It’s devilishly hard to convince people to give up their guns when they’re feeling safer. We have got to make them feel less safe.

JEZEBETH: Well, your Evil Lordship, I have been thinking about this and I’ve got an idea. How about if we increase the violent crime rate so that people feel less safe?

LUCIFER: How in the Hell are you planning to that, Jezebeth? I just said that the problem is less crime.

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher's Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y'know?

The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and the results are in for this week's Watcher's Council match up.

"Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason." - John Harrington

"...Give the devil his due" - Shakespeare- "Henry The Fourth"

“GRAPESHOT, n. An argument which the future is preparing in answer to the demands of American Socialism.” - Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

I got off some pretty good riffs as well as some decent perspective in my piece, but I have to give pride of place to Bookworm's wickedly imaginative idea of a dialogue between Satan and one of his minions!

Here's a slice:

Gun control proponents have a problem. Irrefutable data shows that, since 1992, as American gun ownership has gone up, crime has gone down. When pressed about the dramatic decrease in crime, the best that the Left can do is to point to anything but the increase in privately held weapons:

"Possible reasons for the decline include the country’s high incarceration rate, an aging population and an increased use of security cameras and cell phone videos capturing incidents."

If gun grabbers were forced to grapple with the fact that the increase in guns tracking precisely with the decrease in crime, they’d also have to acknowledge that all the aging Americans, the imprisoned Americans, and the video cameras are irrelevant. Why? Because if more guns really meant more crime, as they insist, the 300 million guns in America today would more than offset age, imprisonment, and video.

The fact is — as even the CDC was forced to admit — that guns are used defensively as often as 1.2 million times a year. This short John Stossel piece gives a very down-and-dirty explanation for the fact that, while guns are a problem when they’re in criminal hands, they’re not a problem in the hands of law-abiding citizens (and, in America, most citizens are law-abiding or at least non-violent):

So what do you do if you desperately want gun control, but the data refuses to cooperate? Well, I can imagine Lucifer and his chief minion having a meeting that goes something like this:

The scene: A well-appointed office in Hell. Satan, in a snazzy red suit is seated behind a heavy oak desk. Standing in front of the desk, facing him, is Jezebeth, a pimply young demon, who’s one of his primary Earth operatives. The year: 2009.

LUCIFER: Jezebeth, you know and I know that too much freedom is good for human souls and therefore bad for our business. Without an all-controlling government, there’s so much less scope for the corruption that fills our Hell halls. After all, every time a petty official is given the power to control a person’s activities, we’re going to start seeing all sorts of wonderful bribery and other graft.

JEZEBETH: Oh, I agree, Satan the Supreme, I agree.

LUCIFER: Don’t interrupt again. We’ll take the groveling as given. Now where was I? Oh, yes. It’s very hard to empower a corrupt, despotic government when the people are armed. Those bureaucrats may crave power, but never enough to put themselves on the wrong side of an armed citizenry. You understand, then, what we have to do: We have to take guns away from Americans.

JEZEBETH: Your Supreme Evilness, you know that we’ve been working in America for years to get guns out of people’s hands. We’ve arranged with our earthly operatives to ensure that every single time more than two white people are shot with a gun in the same event, that our friends in the Democrat party blame guns and demand gun control. But it’s just not working. People keep getting more and more guns — and let me tell you, 9/11 didn’t help us at all. Neither did Hurricane Katrina. Those people we couldn’t sway directly or through our media imps actually realized that, when there’s a crisis, that non-damned NRA was right all along — when seconds count, the police are minutes away.

LUCIFER: Stop babbling, Jezebeth, and focus here. I know that your team has been pushing gun control for years, but you’re failing. We need to brainstorm here. The problem, as I see it, is that the more that ordinary Americans get guns, the fewer guns crimes there are. It’s devilishly hard to convince people to give up their guns when they’re feeling safer. We have got to make them feel less safe.

JEZEBETH: Well, your Evil Lordship, I have been thinking about this and I’ve got an idea. How about if we increase the violent crime rate so that people feel less safe?

LUCIFER: How in the Hell are you planning to that, Jezebeth? I just said that the problem is less crime.

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher's Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y'know?

I had a conversation with a friend about what he might do and my prediction was that Cruz's speech would mostly be an attempt to set himself up for 2020. Cruz could, of course be the one guy who could unify the party and at the same time position himself for a future run. If nothing else, just the fact that he kept his word to support the GOP nominee would mean a lot to people down the line.

That's the choice Reagan made after he was robbed of the nomination in 1976, and he manned up and worked hard for Gerald Ford. I personally think it helped Ronaldus Maximus a great deal in 1980.

Cruz is a very different kind of man, and I use the term loosely where's he's concerned.

The speech itself was basically boilerplate, and at least listenable for awhile because someone finally convinced Cruz somehow to drop the faux-preacher delivery this time that's always been a dead giveaway.

He got away with a lot of cute little lies, like trashing the Iran deal when it was Ted Cruz who voted for the Corker Amendment that allowed Obama to shove it through the senate. Or Cruz talking about how bad out of control offshoring and illegal migration is. It was Marco Rubio who pointed out Cruz's curious record on illegal migration in the debates and stumped him. And you don't get more globalist or pro offshoring than Cruz's choice of running mate, globalist shill Carly Fiorina. And of course, Cruz wasn't going to mention that he helped Obama fast track TPP, and lobbied heavily to increase H1B visas that throw Americans out of work in favor of cheaper foreign labor.

But I was prepared to let him get away with this horse manure because I hoped that just this once, he'd be concerned with something other than Ted Cruz. Silly me.

After talking about how we need leaders who stand for what he called 'shared principles,' Cruz told people not to stay home in November, which the crowd took as a lead in to his endorsing Donald Trump. Instead, he told essentially told people not to vote for Donald Trump with a line he threw in that was missing from the copy of the speech he submitted to Trump and the convention..."Vote your conscience."

Here's what happened after Cruz came out with this beauty..he was literally booed off the stage amid chants of “We want Trump!”

Typical Cruz moment... when the boos started, he flashed that sickly cobra smile of his and said, "I appreciate the enthusiasm of the New York delegation." Except it wasn't just New York as you can see from the video. But Cruz just stood there, smiling that creepy smile that reminded me of nothing so much as Humphrey Bogart's Captain Queeg in 'The Caine Mutiny' smiling while telling the court martial all about the non-existent key and the strawberries. Because like Queeg, Ted Cruz is always right. All that was missing is the little metal balls rattling in his hands.

Even most of the Texas delegation was fed up with him:

Fortunately, Trump and Ivanka appeared to hear Eric Trump speak, and the angry crowd was diverted, which is why you can hear the loud cheers at the end.

The fallout didn't stop there. Back stage, many of Cruz's supporters were visibly angry with him, as the Politico, CNN's Dana Bash and the AP reported. Cruz was refused entry to Sheldon Adelson's Skybox loaded with Republican conservative donors and strategists and was told simply to get out, that 'you don't belong here after what you just did.'

Another well known, long time Cruz backer was reportedly so angry he had to be physically restrained from assaulting the senator, and Heidi Cruz was heckled so badly she had to be hustled out of the arena by security.

The fun didn't end there either. Apparently the Texas delegation holds a traditional breakfast the morning after every convention roll call, and it's usually a pretty easygoing affair. It wasn't this time. Ted Cruz attended to try and make up some lost ground and the delegates called him to account for his behavior, as the New York Times reported:

Repeatedly, the taunts rained down on him.

“Sit down!” one man said, before a “Clinton-Cruz 2020” sign was raised.

“You need to do it now!” shouted another.

“Do it!” yelled a third. “Do it now!”

The episode supplied another vivid demonstration of a party sharply at odds during a moment historically reserved for unity, a snapshot of a convention hurtling into chaos in what was intended to be a celebratory week.

When attendees pointed out Mr. Cruz’s past pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee, Mr. Cruz, under duress throughout 25 minutes of heated questioning, suggested that any agreement was “abrogated” when Mr. Trump attacked his family.

“I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my father,” he said, adding that he was not a “servile puppy dog.”

(Quite a give away, since it proved it wasn't about Cruz's principles, but all about him. - ed. note)

A man in the back hollered at the stage: “You’ve got to get over it. This is politics.”

One attendee, Thomas Mathis, said loudly that he was helping to elect Hillary Clinton and demonstratively turned his back, facing a table of beverages, as Mr. Cruz pressed on.

Another guest, Shawn McAnelly, who twice shouted at Mr. Cruz, was warned by security that if he did so again, he would be ejected.

Mr. Cruz sought to depict his critics as reflective of two men considered boogeymen for hard-line conservatives: John Boehner and Mitch McConnell.

He suggested that the calls to endorse under any circumstances reminded him of Washington ethos of “sit down, shut up, just support the team.”

“If that’s the price, I ain’t gonna do it,” he said.

Other members of the Texas delegation made no attempt to mask their anger at Mr. Cruz, who rose to political stardom with his attacks on other Republicans.

“It’s consistent behavior from him,” Representative Pete Sessions said before Mr. Cruz spoke on Thursday, adding, “He continued what he is — it’s about Ted.”

Representative Jeb Hensarling told reporters that Mr. Cruz had delivered the beginnings of an effective speech on Wednesday night and then “missed a two-foot putt” at the end.

The criticism was particularly striking, given that Mr. Cruz will need the support of the activists and officials in the room here when he seeks renomination to his Senate seat in less than two years.

There's no doubt in my mind that Governor Walker, an uncommonly brave and principled man will work his heart out to get Donald Trump elected. What a contrast to the subject of this story!

The latest attempt by the #neverTrumpers to whitewash this was a series of articles by the usual suspects especially at places like the rapidly sinking NRO. According to their line of - well, I censor myself -why no-oo, Ted Cruz didn’t say anything negative about Donald Trump. 'Vote your conscience' never meant don't vote for Donald Trump, Trump supporters just chose to take it that way. And say, if Trump is such a great, principled guy and it didn't apply to him, then why are you complaining, hmmm?'

Oh, please. Everybody knew exactly what 'vote your conscience' meant after Cruz delivered it with his signature smirk. Even Hillary Clinton got it and tweeted the phrase right after Cruz uttered it, likely cackling while she did it. So did every delegate on the the floor and Cruz caught hell for it even from a lot of his own people. Ted Cruz essentially endorsed Hillary Clinton, with all that portends. She knew it, and so did everyone else.

It was a sick, shameful exhibition of a man putting his own ego before country, let alone party.

I'm sick and tired of people defending this malignant narcissist. This was Trump's convention, he earned it fair and square and if Cruz didn't want to do the right thing, he should have stayed home just like John Kasich, Jeb!, and Lindsay Graham.

Donald Trump showed some real strategy smarts in how he handled this. Cruz wanted a speaking slot and Trump agreed he could have one, even giving him one in prime time. Trump had held out an olive branch to Ted Cruz before when the campaign ended only to have his hand slapped away, but perhaps he figured that given time to get over himself, Ted Cruz might actually do what he pledged to do, swallow hard and support the nominee. That, by the way is how winners behave. They give people the opportunity to come around and do the right thing.

Instead Cruz saw this as an opportunity to do whatever he could to help Hillary Clinton torpedo Donald Trump, figuring the party would rally around him in 2020.

When Trump's people received the speech Cruz planned to give, Cruz's invitation could have been rescinded. It certainly would have if it was Hillary's convention. But Trump wisely let it go through.

He gave Ted Cruz enough rope to hang himself in front of the entire party and millions of voters on prime time television. It actually unified the party by showing people the real Ted Cruz.

The Ready For Hillary #NeverTrump diehards will still worship him, but a lot of people who used to support him now see Ted Cruz for what he is.

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

We bleed again, along with France. And Marianne, the symbol of the French Republic weeps...along with the civilized world. But the shame is ours.

How many more of these atrocities are we going to allow? How long will we put up with it as business as usual, as part of daily life? When will we realize that those stupid candlelight vigils, hashtags and banners are meaningless drivel?

When is the civilized world going to revolt against this slaughter? And when will we insist that our craven, smug incompetent leaders stop tolerating this madness in the name of 'diversity' and stop importing this contagion to our shores? Are we deaf, dumb and blind? Or slaves?

Enough. By G-d, enough.

Welcome to the Watcher's Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the 'sphere, and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council.Then we vote on the best two posts, with the results appearing on Friday morning.

Council News:

The Watcher's Council will have an exciting, brand new development to announce in the next few weeks. Stay tuned!

You can, too! Want to see your work appear on the Watcher’s Council homepage in our weekly contest listing? Didn’t get nominated by a Council member? No worries.

To bring something to my attention, simply head over to Joshuapundit and post the title and a link to the piece you want considered along with an e-mail address (mandatory, but of course it won't be published) in the comments section no later than Monday 6PM PST in order to be considered for our honorable mention category. Then return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for the week when it comes out on Wednesday morning

Simple, no?

It's a great way of exposing your best work to Watcher’s Council readers and Council members while grabbing the increased traffic and notoriety. And how good is that, eh?